View Point:The question of national honour

It could happen only in Pakistan. With a valid Canadian visa stamped on his passport, a sitting member of Parliament, Sheikh Rashid Ahmad, had just embarked a Toronto-bound flight of the national carrier at a Pakistani airport when he was told to disembark on the command of an American transport security administration officer. The incident has generated a lot of outrage and the persistent question, how could a foreigner order an MNA out of a plane in his own country? His last name is not even Khan!

Part of the answer is trademark American arrogance, and part an agreement signed by the previous government that authorises American security officers to give or withhold clearance to passengers boarding aircraft that overfly the US. Given the security situation, it is in the interest of all, the passengers and everyone along these flights’ path, to take necessary precautionary measures. No one should feel humiliated or irritated over stringent checks on our ports. Or if they are subjected to the kind of exhaustive checking and questioning that Pakistanis, especially male visitors, have to undergo at the American ports of entry. Security officers there can’t tell from faces whether or not a foreign entrant is dangerous. But the ones posted here are expected to recognise names, if not faces, of prominent citizens. The American who stopped the flamboyant MNA from flying apparently knew of him, but acted deliberately thinking of the diatribes he has been delivering from the platform of Pakistan Defence Council alongside people like Hafiz Saeed formerly of the banned Lashkar-e-Taiba fame, retired General Hamid Gul and other Taliban apologists. The motive behind the treatment meted out to Sheikh Rashid surely could not be a perceived danger but an urge to punish him for onstage fulminations.

The MNA of course was not going to take the insult lying down. He moved a privilege motion in the National Assembly as fast as he could. But the loudest voice of anger and dismay came from the Leader of the Opposition Syed Khurshid Shah. All worked up, he demanded that the US Ambassador be summoned and handed a demarche. Offloading of a parliamentarian, he thundered, was an insult to national honour, and wanted to know if Pakistanis are an independent nation or slaves to world powers.

The reaction is rather puzzling coming as it does from a party that during its last stint in power never bothered about national honour while cozying up to Washington. The last PPP government gave the US a free hand to do in this country as it liked. It was the then president, Asif Ali Zardari, who told his interlocutors in Washington “collateral damage [from drone strikes] bothers you Americans, not me”. His government let in hundreds of US intelligence men like Raymond Davis, who thought nothing of killing two Pakistanis on a busy Lahore road without any apparent provocation; asked for US’ role in internal affairs through a special provision in an aid bill; defended its ambassador to Washington in the memo scandal involving his alleged authorship of a proposal asking for US’ political/military backing for a revamp of the civilian government “in a wholesale manner” which would include replacing existing national security officials with “trusted advisers that include ex-military and civilian leaders favourably viewed by Washington, each of whom have long and historical ties to the US military, political and intelligence communities.”

So considering the party’s recent track record what is it that bothered the Leader of the Opposition so much? He himself provided the answer as he averred that it was not an issue of stopping a person but a parliamentarian. In other words, ordinary citizens can be treated in whatever manner but national honour is synonymous with members of Parliament, who barring a small minority all belong to a privileged class. The real issue is of special entitlements and the cover national honour.

From the outsiders’ perspective, we all are citizens of a rent-seeking state who would do anything for a price. The Americans are paying us money, Coalition Support Fund, for Afghan war assistance as they did for their first Afghan war and expect unquestioned subservience in return. If the first Afghan adventure gave us Kalashnikov culture, heroin, and violent extremists; the current one has brought the war right into our cities and homes. Then there is the Gulf states’ money that has been flowing, with the knowledge of successive governments, into sectarian seminaries which are wreaking havoc with our lives and social fabric. Yet we are ready to make more enemies, this time in the Gulf region by helping oppressive Gulf regimes with arms and men (according to impeccable sources, the government has decided to send retired members of the security forces wherever required, especially in the restive Bahrain to lend the Sheikhdom a hand in suppressing its pro-democracy opposition) in return for attractive monetary ‘gifts’ like the $1.5 billion ‘gift’ just received.

Everything is up for rent. A while ago, the previous government held a road show in Dubai to lease out seven million acres of our farmlands to whosoever was interested. Although little is formally known of follow-up developments, unconfirmed reports say some fertile farmlands have already been leased out to certain Gulf States to grow crops and raise livestock. This has been done without a thought to the fact that our future food security is at stake. The Global Food Security Index lists Pakistan among ‘extreme risk’ countries. The argument that it will increase productivity is unhelpful since at least three quarters of the produce is to be shipped out of this country. Besides, the rich outsiders are to use heavily mechanised production techniques, hence, the activity won’t produce a significant number of jobs; instead many small farmers will get squeezed out of business.

The outsiders who pay our rulers rent for using our services, materials, or land are not expected to treat us with respect that the elites are discovering even they don’t get. To them, we are all the same: people without honour, uninterested in self-reliance and incapable of charting an independent path to progress and development. Those addicted to mercenary work money, whether individuals or nations, can ill afford to demand respect. One’s honour, as a local saying goes, is in one’s own hands. If you don’t respect yourself, no one will.